Like most Oregonians, you probably assume that public policy in Oregon is controlled and created largely by public officials - by legislators, executives, and commissioners elected and appointed to do the public's business. You also assume the public's business here is conducted openly, in public meetings in public places, not in smoke-filled backrooms. This is Oregon, after all, not New Jersey.

Well, you're mostly right. But pay attention. There's a growing trend in Oregon to farm the public's business out to not-so-public organizations called "work groups." Chances are, you don't know much about them - and that's precisely the problem.

A work group is a small committee of persons who are described in government circles as "stakeholders." (They're most often lobbyists.) Typically, work groups are asked by state officials to develop recommendations to change state policies. Right now, for example, a bevy of state-appointed work groups is drawing up suggestions to revise state laws and rules having to do with business, environmental, and land-use regulations. Their general charge is to enhance the state's economy by "streamlining" those regulations.

Works groups perform some tasks that otherwise have to be done the old-fashioned way, with discussion and deliberation in public hearings. That traditional policy-making process is open and public, but it's also cumbersome. It takes a great deal of time and money to mail notices, to prepare and distribute staff reports and minutes, to conduct hearings, and so on. Even the simplest change to a state rule thus is likely to take many months. Moreover, public hearings are tedious for policy makers, staff, and participants alike. And last, but not least, the traditional process often brings with it significant political risk for public officials.

It's no surprise, then, that state agencies and legislative committees have sought ways to expedite the traditional policy-making process. In recent years, they have turned more and more to work groups. In effect, state officials delegate some of their policy-making chores to these groups. The groups do research and deliberation that would otherwise have to be done by a state agency's staff or governing body. The groups often draw up a package of recommendations that can be taken straight to public hearing. Of course, the hearing itself and the final deliberation and adoption of new policy still are subject to state laws for public notice and participation. The extent of the public review and the public's influence on the policy making, however, may be greatly reduced.

Sometimes, work groups really work. At their best, they supplement traditional procedures such as public hearings and add valuable new ideas and useful information to the policy making.

But at their worst, they subtract from that process. They become a substitute for public input rather than a supplement to it. When work groups go awry, Oregonians are denied full access to policy making. If the state is going to commission these groups to conduct the public's business, then the state must ensure that work groups do their work in public. That can be done by specifying some basic rules for the groups' procedures and operations.

Rules for state policy making already exist, but they often are not applied to or followed by the work groups. Perhaps the most important of those rules is the "Open Meetings Law," ORS 192.610 - .690. Its core policy declares:
The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly. (ORS 192.620)

The Open Meetings Law defines "governing bodies" broadly: "the members of any public body which consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration." Likewise, it defines "public bodies" in broad terms, to include "the state, any regional council, county, city or district, or any municipal or public corporation, or any board, department, commission, council, bureau, committee or subcommittee or advisory group or any other agency thereof."

You might think that such broad wording applies to work groups, too, but the work groups don't. They often meet without any notice to the public and media. They often meet not in a public place but in a private office. They often are chaired not by a public official but by a lobbyist or stakeholder. And they often meet, deliberate, and recommend state policy without maintaining any record of their actions, either on tape or in official minutes.

All this might not be a problem if adequate public involvement occurred later. In that case, a work-group's recommendations would be just one more piece of information for policy makers to consider later, during public review and deliberation. But all too often, work groups become a way to truncate the traditional public process. They provide a cheaper, faster, and less controversial way to develop public policy.

Lobbyists lucky enough to be appointed to the work groups like the arrangement: it gives them greater influence over state policy. But however popular the work group may be with some state officials and lobbyists, it still may not be good for other Oregonians, for these reasons:

1. There's little or no public oversight of work-group meetings or operations. Many work-group meetings are not attended by any state officials. In such a group, the public interest is not likely to be a top priority.
   
   
2. The work groups tend to be made up of and dominated by a small number of special interests. Watchdog organizations and civic groups with broader interests are underrepresented or not represented at all.
   
   
3. Notices and agendas about work-group meetings are provided only to a select few. As a result, some people or groups with very real interests in the policy making may be unaware and excluded from all but the final phases of the process.
   
   
4. The media are not notified of work-group meetings. They are thus unable to attend and inform the public about key policy issues.
   
   
5. Official records or minutes of work-group activities are not prepared, and meetings are usually not tape-recorded. It thus is impossible to determine with any certainty what members of the work group said or agreed to at their meetings. Their recommendations may be misstated or misrepresented later.
   
   
6. Persons not included in the work group tend to have less influence in the final public hearing. The work-group process marginalizes them.

Such marginalization occurs for two reasons. First, testimony from any person or group not invited to work-group proceedings may be discounted: policy makers may tend to regard such persons as less knowledgeable about or less likely to be affected by the policy making. The work-group system thus tends to create two classes of citizens: insiders (the "heavy hitters" who participated in the work group), and outsiders (those who didn't).

Second, those who could not participate in the work groups often are forced to play defense. By the time these "outsiders" get involved, the public debate often has narrowed. The question to be decided has become "should we adopt the recommendations of the work group" rather than "what's the best public policy on this issue?" Outsiders are reduced to critiquing a package of recommendations from the work group. They are cast in the role of critics rather problem solvers.

There's a simple solution to all this: apply to state-sanctioned work groups the same procedural policies and safeguards that apply to state agencies, commissions, committees, and subcommittees:

• Appoint work-group members using an open, public process designed to create balanced, representative groups.
• Make every work group provide general notice about its meetings to the public and media.
• Require every work group to meet in a public place, open to all.
• Ensure that every meeting is chaired by a state official or neutral party whose first responsibility is to conduct a fair meeting.
• Maintain an official record of every work-group meeting, with audio tapes, written minutes, or both.

With a few basic rules like these, work groups really could work.